UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ROBERTO QUINONEZ-QUINTERO, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-3001 (D.C. Nos. 2:13-CV-02477-KHV and 2:08-CR-20106-KHV-6) (D. Kan.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before LUCERO , TYMKOVICH , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

Roberto Quinonez-Quintero seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.
I In March 2010, Quinonez-Qu intero was charged in th e United States District Court for the District of Nebraska with co nspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 24, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - indictment alleged that Quinonez-Quintero (who was proceeding under the alias “Jesus Hernandez-Lopez”), conspired with Bryan Co ta, Alberto Heredia-Castro, and “other persons, both known and unknown to the grand jury, to distribute a nd possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine.” The indictment alle ged that the conspiracy ran “[f]rom an unknown date but at least as early as January, 2008” and c ontinued “through on or about February 11, 2010 , in the District of Nebraska.” Quinonez-Quintero was also charged with possession of methamphetamine with inte nt to distribute and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He entered into a plea agreement in July 2010, under which he agreed to plead gu ilty to the conspiracy ch arge in exchange for di smissal of the remaining

counts. The federal district court in Nebraska imposed a sentence of 108 months’ imprisonment. Prior to the initiation of the Nebraska case, Quinonez-Quintero was charged under his true name in the district of Kansas w ith conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. A second superseding indictment filed in March 2009 alleged th at Quinonez-Quintero, Carlos Guadalupe Beltran-Aguilar, Jose Torres-Garcia, Jose Vi era, Perla Flores, Jose Antonio BeltranSalazar, and “other persons, both known and unknown” conspired to distribute methamphetamine “[c]ommencing on or about Ja nuary 1, 2008, and continuing to on or about September 24, 2008, the exact dates bei ng unknown . . . in the District of Kansas and elsewhere.” Quinonez-Quinte ro entered into a plea agreem ent in the Kansas case in- 3 - November 2011. He agreed to plead guilty to the conspi racy charge and provided a lengthy factual basis for his plea, describing methamphetamine-distribution activities that occurred at two addresses in Kansas City, Kansas. He was sentenced to 292 months’ imprisonment. Quinonez-Quintero filed a § 2255 motion in the Kansas case, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel b ecause his attorney did not raise potential double jeopardy issues during the plea proc ess. The district court denied relief, concluding that Quinonez-Quin tero failed to allege speci fic facts showing that the Nebraska and Kansas convicti ons constituted a single conspiracy. It also declined to grant a COA. Quinonez-Quintero now seeks a COA from this court.
II A prisoner may not appeal the denial of habeas relief under § 2255 without a COA. § 2253(c)(1)(B). We will issue a COA “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a cons titutional right.” § 2253(c)(2). This requires Quinonez-Quintero to show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition s hould have been reso lved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotations omitted). Quinonez-Quintero contends that his couns el was ineffective for failing to advise him that the Kansas and Nebraska charges ra ised double jeopardy c oncerns. To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, a prisoner must demonstrate “that counsel made errors- 4 - so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment” and that “the defici ent performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). To establish prejudice, a “defendant must show that there is a reasonable probab ility that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694. “[I]f two charges of conspiracy are in fa ct based on a defendant’s participation in a single conspiracy, the [Double Jeopardy Clau se] bars the second prosecution.” United States v. Daniels, 857 F.2d 1392, 1393 (1 0th Cir. 1988). A criminal defendant “must prove in fact and in law that only one cons piracy existed in order to prevail on [his] double jeopardy claim.” United States v. Mintz, 16 F.3d 1101, 1104 (10th Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted). To show a single conspira cy, Quinonez-Quintero must establish that the two sets of conspirators shared a “single criminal objective, not just similar or parallel objectives between similarly situated peop le” and that the “coconspirators were interdependent” in that thei r actions “facilitate[d] the endeavors of other alleged coconspirators or facilitate[d] the venture as a whole.” United States v. Carnagie, 533 F.3d 1231, 1238-39 (10th Cir. 2008) (quo tations omitted). We agree with the district court that Quinonez-Quintero has not offered specific allegations showing interdependence between th e two conspiracies. He relies principally on his own assertion that the two were identical. But “conclusory allegations unsupported by specifics” are in sufficient to avoid dismissal. United States v. Weeks, 653 F.3d 1188, 1205 ( 10th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). Quinonez-Quinte ro also notes- 5 - that both indictments refer to unknown participan ts in arguing that uncer tainty exists as to the membership of each conspi racy. But uncertainty is in sufficient given that QuinonezQuintero bears the burden of proof. See Mintz, 16 F.3d at 1104. And QuinonezQuintero is the sole individu al identified as being a member of both conspiracies. The only specific fact alleged by Quinonez-Quin tero purporting to tie the conspiracies together is his notation that at least one of the Kansas coconspirato rs had connections to the state of Nebraska. This falls well short of showing that the Kansas coconspirators facilitated the Nebraska conspiracy . Carnagie, 533 F.3d at 1238.
III For the foregoing reasons, Quinonez- Quintero’s request for a COA is DENIED and this appeal is DISMISSED . We GRANT his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge